Progressive Dawoodi Bohras

What is religion is a moot question. The Supreme Court in S.P. Mittal etc. vs Union of India and others – a case relating to the Auroville Township in Pondicherry, came to the conclusion that, “the word 'religion’ has not been defined in the Constitution and indeed it is a term which is hardly susceptible to any rigid definition”.

Ultimately, religion is a way of life. Therefore the organised religion is irreligious. When the religion is organised, it becomes a sect, which is water-tight and air-tight in nature.

What are the factors that are common to all religions? The first is faith in God, second is ethics or code of conduct and the third is our dealing with other men, animal and our attitude towards nature. These thing being common to all the religion, as in mathematics these common factors get cancelled and then what is left are mere rituals which we call religion.

In our country in the name of religion we have traditionally insulted the man. Inspite of various religions and sects we have been more often slaves than free men.

We have so many religious preceptors with tremendous followings. Still this country has been a country of subject people for most of its history. It is because we have never cared for the dignity of man as a human being. Our country is not a country of spirituality, but a country of religiosity. Religion is not only different from spirituality but very often it is anti-spirituality.

Religion is concerned not with life in this world, not with liberation of the soul but life after death. So religion is other worldliness. In the name of religion we always lived not a life of duplicity but also a life of split personality. We have lived on two levels – one religious level and the other mundane (routine) level.

When you make your creed or community as the basis of your nationality you are communal. This is the nearest definition of communalism, denominationalism. Spiritual values are quite different from religious values. It is not be forgotten that that there have been more wars, deaths and destructions in the name of religion and God, than in the name kingdoms and properties.

Therefore in my view the first principle of spirituality is reverence for all life, however low, however mean and that should be our watchword. Life is in relationship and there is no life in isolation. A man can not live alone. Life is relationship with our fellowmen, relationship with animals, relationship with vegetable kingdom and relationship with all the nature.

Culture is an art of living with others. Therefore the man is the measure of all things, and there is nothing higher than man.

If we study various parts of our Constitution, we find that chapter dealing with the Fundamental Rights, Fundamental Duties and Directive Principles are nothing but adaptation of Universal Human Rights.

It is no doubt that we have recognised the fundamental right to religion, but it does not intend the State to play a role of passive spectator, but it lays down that State should be active wherever there is denial of social and economic justice. By limiting the freedom of religion within the spiritual bounds and separating it from the secular matters the Constitution makers sought to resolve this dilemma, that blind adherence to ritualism might lead to narrow bigotry eroding the structure of society based on equality, justice and human rights.

When there is a conflict between the Human Rights and so called Religious Rights, obviously the Human Rights must prevail. Otherwise religion and spirituality will become inhuman. To say the least that will be negation of the spirituality itself and will result in religious terrorism.

This is what has been precisely laid down in the well-known case, “Sardar Sayedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb V/s State of Bombay”. It is related to excommunication of a person on religious ground. In my view such act of excommunication is derogatory, as well contrary to well accepted human rights.

Much water has flown after the said case was decided by the Supreme Court. Now the Chapter dealing with the fundamental duties is incorporated in the Constitution by 42nd Amendment Act, 1976. By the said chapter it is laid down that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India “to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women. To value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture and to develop scientific temper, humanism and spirit of inquiry and social reform”.

These Fundamental Duties will have to be read in the chapter dealing with the Fundamental Rights and particularly the right of freedom of religion. These two will have to be read together and harmoniously.

Even prior to the insertion of this Chapter in the Constitution in the case of Rev. Stainislaus V/s State of Madhya Pradesh and others, the Supreme Court had held that right to propagate one’s religion will not include in its import right to covert any person to one’s own religion. The Supreme Court has observed “what Article 25(1) grants is not right to convert other person to one’s own religion by an exposition of its tenets.

(In case of Dawoodi Bohras the present tenets are not of Bohra faith but these tenets are brain child of a dominant person who is trying to compel every Bohra to accept them. Which literary means converting persons of one faith to one’s own faith and that too on threat of excommunication. It is an impingement on the Freedom of Conscience guaranteed to all the Citizens of this country alike.)

In my view right to excommunication runs counter to this principle. There should be democracy within religion. You can not expect ONE HEAD on all the shoulders.

Freedom of expression is a part and parcel of human rights, which means right to differ and, therefore, this human right must prevail, over and above the so called religious right or freedom. Freedom of conscience, means, there should be an absolute right to express religious as well as non-religious views, without fear. Fundamentalism in any religion violates this freedom. Religion may have some positive features, but ignoring them, fundamentalists are imposing negative consequences because of their intolerance, obsessions and opposition to progress.

Under our constitution, power to make laws vests in the parliament and the legislature. This takes in its import power to legislate, even in the matters relating to the personal laws or so called religious rights. To say that the parliament has no right to regulate or legislate in the field of religion will practically amount to negation of Parliamentary Sovereignty. It will mean that in the religious field Mullas and Dharmadhikari, are supreme and not parliament or judiciary. This will not only run counter to the various directive principles incorporated in our Constitution but will amount to negation of basic human rights.

The Universal Declaration of human rights is binding upon India, since it is a signatory to the said declaration. Very basis of this declaration is that the interest of the one part of the world is bound up with the interests of human beings as a whole in very other part of the World.

As Dr. Martin Luther King says, injustice anywhere is bound to lead injustice everywhere. Pains and troubles of one part of the human family, may be religious or otherwise, cause the pain and trouble to the rest of the human family. This is the fundamental concept underlying making of binding declarations and conventions in which the nations of the world have joined.

Therefore, it is quite obvious that whenever there is a conflict between the human right and the religious right, human right must prevail. Any Law, which is violative of the basic human rights, can safely be termed as inhuman.

Irony is that in this country we have always insulted a human being, in the name of religion. Therefore, any step or precept, which results in denying basic human rights, must be termed as irreligious. Our religions inculcate the fear of the guru or head priest but we have to go beyond this, we have to place human rights above everything else. This can be termed as true humanism. Therefore, ultimately is appears that the religions in plurality will have to go or disappear giving place to one and only religion, which recognises human rights and universal Brotherhood as the basis of its governance and this is our goal, which we ultimately want to achieve. There is enough provision of dignity of man (including women)in Islam which must be brought in practice.